The Worst President in History?

I read the Times,hingehead, but you took a sentence out of context.

Give the entire article or editorial or a link in which the entire article or editorial can be found.

I gave links to the entire articles I posted.

Please do the same!!!

Bush cannot yet be declared the worst.....history has not yet ended.

Since hingehead hasn't posted in the last three pages, Bernard, I'm not sure who you're talking about. If it's me, since I'm the one who cited the NYT, my quote is an accurate quote of the entire last two paragraphs in "The Republican Agenda for 2006: Tax Cuts for a Favored Few" (as cited).

If you can get into the Times archive online, you're doing better than me--every time I've signed up they cut me off the next time I try--may have something to do with the configuration of my cookie blockers, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna change them even for the Times. So I have to be 20th Century about it and use hardcopy, which that was from.

And as a further note on preferences for Dems versus Reps on tax policy:


"On the March 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically reported a claim by "Republican leaders'" that the "president's strengths, like tax cuts or tough anti-terror measures, have been overlooked" because of Americans' concern over the war in Iraq. In repeating Republican assertions that the issue of taxes is one of the "president's strengths," Gregory ignored the most recent polling on the subject -- a January 22-25 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll that, as Media Matters for America has noted, found that a plurality of Americans (43 percent) trust Democrats to do "a better job of handling taxes" than the president. In that poll, only 34 percent said the president would do a better job. And regarding "tough anti-terror" measures, polls indicate that American approval of the president on terrorism is decidedly more mixed than Gregory's statement suggested.
As Media Matters has previously documented (here and here), other media figures have baselessly asserted that the public trusts Republicans over Democrats on the issue of taxes. In addition to the polls Media Matters cited at the time, a March 10-13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that more Americans think Democrats (35 percent), rather than Republicans (26 percent), will do a good job "dealing with taxes." "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210006

I read your link, cicerone, that purportedly explains the mystical numbers assigned to various aspects of the economy for each of the presidents, and.... I don't know what to say except I have no way to verify how they derived the numbers. With all due respect, it appears to be a serious case of "figures don't lie, but liars will figure."

First of all, I do not believe a president is solely responsible for what happens in an economy. There is such a thing as a Congress that also influences things. There are also natural economic cycles and world events in other countries, and wars that we may or may not have power to have changed their course. I would compare our economy to a giant oceanliner that does not turn on a dime, but is established as to its general course by a number of factors, some of which are minor short term effects, and others that are larger longer term effects. I believe our economy enjoys the benefits of policies that have been in place for possibly a long time, and so a president can be as much a victim or beneficiary of previous administration policies as he is the instigator of them.

Heres my take on the supposedly great economy under Clinton. He enjoyed the effects of 2 or 3 things. One, he lowered military spending while gutting the morale and readiness of the military, while he let things pretty much coast or slide in that regard. Secondly, the economy enjoyed the effects of previous policies set in motion, and the shorter term policy effects of the Republican led congress. And third, he rode the crest of a stock bubble fueled by over confidence in tech stocks and internet company speculation. Just one example of this bubble that I personally noted was the building of summer homes in some areas I am familiar with by people that made a mint off the market rise. This stimulated construction and other economic activity, and the economy, but it was partially made from an artificial bubble that has required correction since that time. People called it "monopoly money" at the time. By the time Clinton left office, the economy was already headed down and Bush had to cope with turning it around, plus the effects of 911 entered the equation.

Username--sir--Polls? Do Presidents govern by Polls? I hope that you know as much about polls as I do.
Polls can get a result which is close to the result they wish to get by the way they word the questions.

Los Angeles/Bloomberg? For God's sake. Why don't you get a poll out of Howard Dean's office?

All this nonsense about polls is meaningless until the rubber hits the road.

You should go to review the polls taken before the election of 2004. Then, many "reliable"pollsters named Kerry as the probable winner.

Exit Polls? In November 2004, the exit polls had Kerry named as the winner in the early hours.

okie, tyou're right about the number of things that affect the economy, certainly, and both parties overstate the amount of influence they have on it.

Your point about Clinton and the military doesn't hold water. Bush invaded Afgahanistan and Iraq with essentially the military Clinton left him, minus Rumsfled's "streamlining". The military performed well--that wasn't where the Bush ballsups came from. They came from Bush et al and their complete lack of congruence with reality and complete pie-in-the-sky misreading of the reality on the ground in Iraq.

And it's remarkable how Republicans claim credit for the Clinton-era exonomy as somehow reflective of their policies, when they had 12 years for their policies to work, and produced 2 and a half recessions, and Bush I left office with his last year in recession, plus the anemic job growth which if you look at the statistics puts all Republican presidents since Hoover behind all Democratic presidents, and if you look at the figures, they started back up before the 95 Congress was in or passed anything. So Reps. really can't claim any credit.

Okie- I have a book by Bob Woodward.It is entitled "Maestro". It is a biography of the economic genius, Alan Greenspan.

Here is what Woodward says:

"Alan Greenspan has been the steward of the economy of the nineties"


A close examination of Clinton's tenure( leaving out the shameful Impeachment) will reveal that he really only had a few major bills passed in his eight years in office( Those who find other major bills( there aren't any) are invited to list them.

His bills were initiatives which were more attuned to Republican goals rather than Democratic ones.

a. NAFTA

b. Recognition of China as a Most Favored Nation

c. Welfare Reform


Okie-There is no one who can show that Federal Tax Revenues did not rise after tax cuts.

I refer, not only to tax cuts during GW Bush's tenure but also tax cuts during the presidencies of Reagan and Kennedy.

Kennedy has some great quotes about the need for tax cuts and how they can help an economy!!!

username, the people I've known that have been in the military breathed a huge sigh of relief when Clinton left and Bush took office. During Clinton, many were either leaving the military or extending their service despite their displeasure with Clinton by clinging to hope that things would improve after Clinton. I can only speak for the people I've known, but their opinions also included their knowledge of fellow servicemen and women.

If you haven't gotten it yet, and apparently you haven't, Clinton was a centrist. You also omit the fact that Clinton dragged the Republicans kicking and screaming into balancing the budget, after Newtie's embarrassing failed attempt to bring the government to a standstill because he had to get off the back of AFOne backfired so dismally.

And the Clointon surplus sure vanished magically at the hands of George W. Bush.

I'm going to sleep now. Rant on without me. As you were.

I don't know for sure about a. and b., but c. (welfare reform) Clinton only signed because he couldn't get out of it. It was the Republican Congress, and Newt Gingrich specifically that can take credit for that. After it worked, then he decided to try and take credit for it. If it had not worked, he would have disavowed it and said it was a Republican idea. That was Clintons mode of operation, lie and twist, and distort the record. He in fact ran on the claim that Bush I had the worst economy since the Great Depression, which of course was ludicrous.

You've been asleep already while posting, apparently, as your arguments are in the dark! Just kidding.

As far as Clinton being a centrist, he wasn't much of anything I don't think, except in favor of having fun. I really don't know what Clinton was beyond that. I just know I'm glad he's gone and I hope his wife never sees the light of day in her political aspirations.

You got it right Okie. Clinton only signed the Welfare Bill because it was the third time the Congress had laid it before him.

Really a man of Principle!!!

If we had a main stream press that actually did their job, when Clinton first ran and made ludicrous claims about the economy among other things, the press could have called him on it, and exposed him as the liar that he was and we perhaps would have never had to tolerate eight years of corruption.

It is my opinion, those 8 years did more to divide the country than almost anything thats happened in the country in my lifetime. The reason I hold that opinion is when Nixon was found out, the Republicans finally marched into his office and said, "Pal, its time to go." My translation as to what they said, but that was the summary of it. Principles trumped party. When rampant corruption occurred with Clinton, not one lousy Democrat thought more of decency and country more than their lousy party. Party trumped principles. Conservatives and Republicans are still smarting over that, and furthermore the Democrats made a decision to turn the tables by digging every last shred of dirt on any Republican they can find. And where they can't find any, they will also invent some. This level of division would not be necessary if people, their politicians, and the press would simply value honesty and country over party.

It simply amazes me the reality you live in okie. What "ludicrous claims" did Clinton make about the economy. The economy is judged on several factors, the primary one being GDP growth. GDP growth is a matter of historical public record. To claim Clinton made ludicrous claims about the GDP would require that the GDP was revised at some point since then to reflect the reality you claims existed. No such thing has occurred. That means one of 2 things. You don't know what you are talking about or the Bush administration has continued the lies you claim Clinton told. My guess is the first.

I suppose you are correct in some way that Clinton is the reason for the 8 years of corruption we are seeing from the GOP controlled congress afterall Clinton makes the GOP do everything it doesn't want to do. Its that Clinton mind control thing I guess.

Meanwhile Bush is doing a damn good job of UNITING the country. (Against them for not doing that with Bush.) What rampant corruption? The Clinton administration was the most investigated administration in US history. The funny thing about those partisan investigations. They ultimately found little criminal activity.

RW idiots are still smarting over the fact that their paranoia didn't equate to reality.
Really? That is quite the fantasy world you live in there okie.. Especially the way you keep putting party ahead of country on the issue of spying on Americans.

He accused the economy under Bush I as being the worst since the Great Depression. That is pretty ludicrous. I have no clue as to what economic indicator they may have found to support such a claim, but perhaps they found one somewhere? To mention the economy as a comparison to the Great Depression was an outlandish claim and he assuredly would have known it, and he should have been called on the carpet and demonstrated as the phony he was.

So Parados, you will likely come up with something, but unemployment during the Great Depression reached almost 25% at one point, and I don't think anything close to that has occurred since, certainly not during the first Bush. And Bush's famous statement of "read my lips, no new taxes" bugs me, for the simple fact that Bush only capitulated to what the Democrats wanted, but of course he got the blame for it as if it was his idea. I do not absolve him from breaking a promise, but nevertheless I understand the source of the idea, which was the Democrats.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~yy3955/GDP_LR.pdf

As for the rest of your discussion, such as what corruption during Clinton, do we need to plow that ground again? It is a matter of record if you weren't deaf and blind during that period of time.

This is almost too funny! Most people thought Laura Bush was smart..


From NewsMax.Com:

First Lady: 'I Don't Believe George's Low Ratings'

First lady Laura Bush isn't worrying much about President Bush's low poll ratings - she says they're wrong.

"I don't really believe those polls," said Bush, who added that the news media seem to have "a lot of fun" writing front-page stories when ratings are low but ignoring the numbers when they are high.

"As I travel around in the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course,'" she said on "Fox News Sunday."

Laura Bush is nothing but a bobblehead doll.

gus, So it seems, but most people rated her way above the president in polls.
I guess she just dumbs down for her hubby.

Provide me a source for the actual quote okie and I will look into it.